DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 39,
The phrase “at least two compensation coils for generating a local compensation field” on line 8 introduces new matter.
The above claim phrase is reciting that the two compensation coils generate “a local compensation field,” and thus one compensation field. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose such a feature, where it discloses “The compensation coils 3 and 4, controlled by the controllable current sources 6 and 8, respectively, generate local compensation fields” (emphasis added) on lines 5-7 of page 9. As such, the original disclosure is explaining that each coil has its own distinct and respective current placed into each respective coil, and that each respective coil generates its own respective compensation field. The above phrase introduces new matter, because the original disclosure does not disclose that both compensation coils generate “a local compensation field” as claimed.
The phrase “at least one current source, separately and independently controllable of the primary coil, configured to control a current provided to the at least two compensation coils” on lines 9-11 introduces new matter.
The above claim is stating that at least one, and thus one current source is configured to control a current provided to the at least two compensation coils, but the original disclosure expressly states “a first compensation coil 3 with an assigned first controllable current source 8 and a second compensation coil 4 with an assigned second current source 6” on lines 24-25 of page 7, and where lines 3-7 of page 9 further emphasize the fact that each compensation coil has its own respective current source that controls the respective coil. The original disclosure does not originally disclose one current source that is configured to control “a current,” and thus the same current, to the at least two compensation coils as claimed. Instead, each coil has its own respective current source, as also seen in Figure 1. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
The phrase “wherein a measurement of the current of the at least two compensation coils is not used for outputting the detection signal, wherein the detection signal comprises a binary signal indicating whether a target is nearer or further than a switch distance, wherein the separately controllable current source enables adjustment of an amplitude and/or a phase position of the current provided to the at least two compensation coils, wherein a frequency of the current provided to the at least two compensation coils is predetermined by the oscillator through a connection between the oscillator and the at least one current source, and wherein the control and evaluation unit is further configured to independently control the at least one current source to provide the current to the at least two compensation coils to manipulate the alternating magnetic field generated by the primary coil while the oscillator is driving the primary coil. on lines 12 to the end introduces new matter.
1) At issue here is that all of the above relies upon the compensation coils have the same current, where applicant, for example, recites “the current of the at least two compensation coils” on line 12. The original disclosure does not disclose that the same current will be in both compensation coils. While the original disclosure does state “the frequency of the current through the first compensation coil 3 and the second compensation coil 4 is predetermined by the oscillator 5,” it is clear that the exact same current is not in both coils, as applicant also explains “The first controllable current source 8 and the second controllable current source 6 in each case facilitate an individual adjustment of amplitude and relative phase position of the current through the first compensation coil 3 or the second compensation coil 4” on lines 21-25 of page 8.
When applicant refers to “the current,” it is clear that applicant is referring to the specific current in each particular coil, but not that each current for each coil is identical. This is reasonably evidenced by the fact that the current in each coil is expressly disclosed to be individually adjusted in amplitude and phase by the controllable current sources 6 and 8. At a minimum, oscillator (5) has two different wire lines connecting respectively to the current sources 6 and 8, and thus two distinct currents are used, one for each current source as explicitly seen in Figure 1. Even if these two distinct currents had the same amplitude and phase, they are not the same current as they are and must be distinct. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
2) Applicant claims “a frequency of the current provided to the two compensation coils is predetermined by the oscillator through a connection between the oscillator and the one current source,” but where no connection between the oscillator and one current source is disclosed to provide “a current” or “the current” to both compensation coils. As seen in Figure 1, the oscillator (5) has two different wires/connections for each respective current source 6,8, and thus it is not originally disclosed to provide the current through “a connection” between the oscillator and the one current source, which is subsequently used for two different compensation coils as claimed. This phrase introduces new matter.
3) The phrase “the control and evaluation unit is further configured to independently control the separately controllable current source to provide the current to the two compensation coils to generate the compensation field and to manipulate the alternating magnetic field generated by the primary coil while the oscillator is driving the primary coil” introduces new matter. The control and evaluation unit is not configured to control “the current” to the two compensation coils,” because no common current is provided to both coils as explained above. No control unit is originally disclosed to perform this function, and this feature therefore introduces new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 39,
The phrases “at least one current source, separately and independently controllable of the primary coil, configured to control a current provided to the at least two compensation coils, wherein a measurement of the current of the at least two compensation coils is not used for outputting the detection signal, wherein the detection signal comprises a binary signal indicating whether a target is nearer or further than a switch distance, wherein the separately controllable current source enables adjustment of an amplitude and/or a phase position of the current provided to the at least two compensation coils, wherein a frequency of the current provided to the at least two compensation coils is predetermined by the oscillator through a connection between the oscillator and the at least one current source, and wherein the control and evaluation unit is further configured to independently control the at least one current source to provide the current to the at least two compensation coils to manipulate the alternating magnetic field generated by the primary coil while the oscillator is driving the primary coil” on lines 9 to the end is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear how the one current applied to the two different compensation coils should be interpreted. The entirety of the above phrase is predicated on the idea that one current is applied to both compensation coils from one current source, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose such a feature as explained above. It is unclear how such feature should therefore be interpreted, as one current is not used for both coils, and one current source is not used for both coils as claimed The metes and bounds of how such a feature should be interpreted is unclear in light of this, as it is unclear if the claim should be treated with two distinct currents sent two distinct current sources which subsequently use these currents for the coils, or if the same current must be used as claimed.
This raises a further issue, because it is unclear if a current in one of the coils can be measured while “a current” from the group of coils is not measured. The metes and bounds of this phrase are indefinite, as it is unclear what can and cannot be measured and it is unclear how many currents must be present in the claim, in light of the disclosure.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim feature as expressly claimed, in that one current sent to both coils, and one current is not measured, even if other currents are, such as a current in another of the compensation coils is measured. Because one current in one of the coils is not measured, such an interpretation is consistent with the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-20, 24, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teppan et al. (Teppan) (US 2017/0219632 A1) in view of Heemstra (US 4,488,113).
As to Claims 17, 35, and 36,
Teppan a fluxgate magnetic field detector that includes a primary coil (3 of 4) for generating an alternating magnetic field (Paragraph [0059]), (Figure 4), an oscillator (36,40) for driving the primary coil (Figure 4), (Paragraph 0073]), (Figure 15a / note the excitation voltage is an oscillating signal, and thus because the controller is outputting such a signal, it is an oscillator).
a control and evaluation unit (21,37,40), which is operatively connected to the oscillator and is equipped to acquire and evaluate an amplitude and a phase position of a current in the primary coil and for outputting a detection signal depending on the acquired current in the primary coil (Paragraphs [0061],[0075] / note phase and amplitude are obtained and evaluated, and a detection signal is output depending the current (Ifx) in the primary coil),
at least one compensation coil (6) for generating a local compensation field while the oscillator is driving the primary coil to manipulate the alternating magnetic field generated by the primary coil (Paragraphs [0058],[0060]), and
a separately and independently controllable current source (13) of the primary coil, configured to control a current provided to the at least one compensation coil (Paragraphs [0020],[0065],[0074] / note the amplifiers are controlled by the output of their respective controllers),
wherein a measurement of the current of the at least one compensation coil is not used for outputting the detection signal (Figure 4 / no measurement is made of the current in the compensation coil),
wherein the separately controllable current source enables adjustment of an amplitude and/or a phase position of the current provided to the at least one compensation coil (Figure 4 / note an amplitude will be adjusted as the amplifier will output a different amplitude depending on the signal applied to the amplifier),
wherein a frequency of the current provided to the at least one compensation coil is predetermined by the oscillator through a connection between the oscillator and the separately controllable current source (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0058] / note any frequency of the current provided to the compensation coil, which is the same as that of the primary coil as these are just out of phase with each other is predetermined by the oscillator as claimed), and
wherein the control and evaluation unit is further configured to independently control the separately controllable current source to provide the current to the at least one compensation coil to generate the compensation field and to manipulate the alternating magnetic field generated by the primary coil while the oscillator is driving the primary coil (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0058]),
Teppan does not disclose an inductive proximity switch, wherein the detection signal comprises a binary signal indicating whether a target is nearer or further than a switch distance, the control and evaluation unit is equipped to determine when the current in the primary coil falls below a threshold to be specified and depending on that, to output an output signal.
Heemstra discloses that it is known to use a fluxgate as an inductive proximity switch (Abstract),(Column 5, Lines 24-31 and 46-50/ note proximity switch),(Figures 1-3), an inductive proximity switch Column 5, Lines 24-31 and 46-50/ note proximity switch), (Figures 1-3), and wherein the detection signal comprises a binary signal indicating whether a target is nearer or further than a switch distance (Column 10, Lines 3-11 / note the output of the circuit is binary as it turns ON when a target is within a threshold and thus nearer than a switch distance, and off when it is further than the switch distance), the control and evaluation unit is equipped to determine when the current in the primary coil falls below a threshold to be specified and depending on that, to output an output signal (Column 10, Lines 3-11 / note the output of the circuit is binary as it turns ON when a target is within a threshold and thus nearer than a switch distance, and off when it is further than the switch distance),
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Teppan to include using the fluxgate as an inductive proximity switch to therefore include an inductive proximity switch, wherein the detection signal comprises a binary signal indicating whether a target is nearer or further than a switch distance, the control and evaluation unit is equipped to determine when the current in the primary coil falls below a threshold to be specified and depending on that, to output an output signal as taught by Heemstra in order to advantageously utilize an art recognized equivalent device and use of a fluxgate (MPEP 2144.06), and in order to advantageously be able to provide an indication of when an object just as an elevator is at a desired level or position (Column 1, Lines 8-14) and thus ensure and be able to detect that these objects are at the correct location as desired.
As to Claim 18,
Teppan discloses the at least one compensation coil includes a plurality of compensation coils (6,26) (Figure 4).
As to Claim 19,
Teppan discloses the separately controllable current source is one of a plurality of separately controllable current sources (Figure 4 / note sources (13 and 28), wherein the inductive proximity switch includes a different separately controllable current source (13,28) for each of the plurality of compensation coils (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0060]).
As to Claim 20,
Teppan discloses the separately controllable current source is equipped to control the amplitude and the phase position of the current provided to the at least one compensation coil (Figure 4), (Paragraphs [0057],[0058],[0064] / note the amplifier is reasonably able/equipped to control amplitude and phase of the current because it will adjust what is output from the amplifier based upon what is provided to it).
As to Claim 24,
Teppan discloses a compensation coil of the at least one compensation coil is arranged in an axial direction behind the primary coil (Figure 4 / note coil 6 has its central axis behind the primary coil in the left/right direction).
As to Claim 26,
Teppan discloses the primary coil has a coil core (Paragraph [0059]).
As to Claim 33,
Teppan the control and evaluation unit has a programmable logical component with analog and digital functionality (Figure 4 / note controllers are part of microprocessor and note the DACs).
As to Claim 34,
Teppan discloses the control and evaluation unit has a programmable microcontroller with analog and digital functionality (Figure 4 / note the controllers are part of a microprocessor and thus are microcontrollers).
As to Claim 39,
Teppan a fluxgate magnetic field detector that includes a primary coil (3 of 4) for generating an alternating magnetic field (Paragraph [0059]), (Figure 4), an oscillator (36,40) for driving the primary coil (Figure 4), (Paragraph 0073]), (Figure 15a / note the excitation voltage is an oscillating signal, and thus because the controller is outputting such a signal, it is an oscillator).
a control and evaluation unit (21,37,40), which is operatively connected to the oscillator and is equipped to acquire and evaluate an amplitude and a phase position of a current in the primary coil and for outputting a detection signal depending on the acquired current in the primary coil (Paragraphs [0061],[0075] / note phase and amplitude are obtained and evaluated, and a detection signal is output depending the current (Ifx) in the primary coil),
at least two compensation coils (6,26) for generating a local compensation field (Paragraphs [0058],[0060] / note the combined field from both coils is considered the local compensation field), and
at least one current source, separately and independently controllable (13,28) of the primary coil, configured to control a current provided to the two compensation coils (Paragraphs [0020],[0065],[0074] / note the amplifiers are controlled by the output of their respective controllers, and an as best understood interpretation is being made where the two current sources are considered one overall current source for the purpose of compact prosecution),
wherein a measurement of the current of the two compensation coils is not used for outputting the detection signal (Figure 4 / no measurement is made of the current in the compensation coil (6)),
wherein the separately controllable current source enables adjustment of an amplitude and/or a phase position of the current provided to the two compensation coils (Figure 4 / note an amplitude will be adjusted as the amplifier will output a different amplitude depending on the signal applied to the amplifier),
wherein a frequency of the current provided to the two compensation coils is predetermined by the oscillator through a connection between the oscillator and the separately controllable current source (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0058] / note any frequency of the current provided to the compensation coil, which is the same as that of the primary coil as these are just out of phase with each other is predetermined by the oscillator as claimed, and the “current” of the claim is interpreted to be one of the currents provided to one of the compensation coils), and
wherein the control and evaluation unit is further configured to independently control the separately controllable current source to provide the current to the two compensation coils to generate the compensation field and to manipulate the alternating magnetic field generated by the primary coil while the oscillator is driving the primary coil (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0058] / note that this feature is being interpreted to mean that the above control unit is configured to control one of the currents in one of the coils, and the prior art discloses this function as well as the ability to control both currents in both coils).
Teppan does not disclose an inductive proximity switch, wherein the detection signal comprises a binary signal indicating whether a target is nearer or further than a switch distance, the control and evaluation unit is equipped to determine when the current in the primary coil falls below a threshold to be specified and depending on that, to output an output signal.
Heemstra discloses that it is known to use a fluxgate as an inductive proximity switch (Abstract),(Column 5, Lines 24-31 and 46-50/ note proximity switch),(Figures 1-3), an inductive proximity switch Column 5, Lines 24-31 and 46-50/ note proximity switch), (Figures 1-3), and wherein the detection signal comprises a binary signal indicating whether a target is nearer or further than a switch distance (Column 10, Lines 3-11 / note the output of the circuit is binary as it turns ON when a target is within a threshold and thus nearer than a switch distance, and off when it is further than the switch distance), the control and evaluation unit is equipped to determine when the current in the primary coil falls below a threshold to be specified and depending on that, to output an output signal (Column 10, Lines 3-11 / note the output of the circuit is binary as it turns ON when a target is within a threshold and thus nearer than a switch distance, and off when it is further than the switch distance).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Teppan to include using the fluxgate as an inductive proximity switch to therefore include an inductive proximity switch, wherein the detection signal comprises a binary signal indicating whether a target is nearer or further than a switch distance, the control and evaluation unit is equipped to determine when the current in the primary coil falls below a threshold to be specified and depending on that, to output an output signal as taught by Heemstra in order to advantageously utilize an art recognized equivalent device and use of a fluxgate (MPEP 2144.06), and in order to advantageously be able to provide an indication of when an object just as an elevator is at a desired level or position (Column 1, Lines 8-14) and thus ensure and be able to detect that these objects are at the correct location as desired.
Claims 21, 22 ,23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teppan et al. (Teppan) (US 2017/0219632 A1) in view of Heemstra (US 4,488,113) as applied to Claim 17 and in further view of Gong et al. (Gong) (US 2010/0060270).
As to Claims 21, 22, 23, 25, and 37,
Teppan discloses the at least one compensation coil includes a plurality of compensation coils (Figure 4 / note coils 6 and 26).
Teppan in view of Heemstra does not disclose a compensation coil of the at least one compensation coil surrounds the primary coil at least partially, the compensation coil surrounding the primary coil at least partially has an expansion in an axial direction which is greater than or equal to an expansion of the primary coil or of a coil core of the primary coil in its axial direction, a compensation coil of the at least one compensation coil surrounds the primary coil completely, one of the plurality of compensation coils at least partially surrounds the primary coil, the compensation coil arranged behind the primary coil has a diameter that is greater than or equal to a diameter of the primary coil or the diameter of a coil core of the primary coil.
Gong discloses a compensation coil ((14),(26)) of the at least one compensation coil surrounds the primary coil (12) at least partially (Figures 1,3B), the compensation coil surrounding the primary coil at least partially has an expansion in an axial direction which is greater than or equal to an expansion of the primary coil or of a coil core of the primary coil in its axial direction (Figures 1,3B), a compensation coil of the at least one compensation coil surrounds the primary coil completely (Figures 1,3B), (Paragraphs [0024],[0026]), the compensation coil (14,26) arranged behind the primary coil has a diameter that is greater than or equal to a diameter of the primary coil or the diameter of a coil core of the primary coil (Figures 3A-3C / note that coil 14 and/or 26 can be said to be behind primary coil 12 in Figure 3A for example with the top being behind).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Teppan in view of Heemstra to include adding a compensation coil or modifying the already existing compensation coil such that the compensation coil of the at least one compensation coil surrounds the primary coil at least partially, the compensation coil surrounding the primary coil at least partially has an expansion in an axial direction which is greater than or equal to an expansion of the primary coil or of a coil core of the primary coil in its axial direction, a compensation coil of the at least one compensation coil surrounds the primary coil completely, one of the plurality of compensation coils at least partially surrounds the primary coil, the compensation coil arranged behind the primary coil has a diameter that is greater than or equal to a diameter of the primary coil or the diameter of a coil core of the primary coil given the above disclosure and teaching of Gong in order to advantageously allow the magnetic sensing device to be more compact and be used in smaller spaces.
As to Claim 27,
Teppan in view of Heemstra does not disclose the coil core is a pot core.
Gong discloses the primary coil (12) has a coil core (Paragraph [0019]), the coil core is a pot core (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Teppan in view of Heemstra to include the primary coil has a coil core, the coil core is a pot core as taught by Gong in order to advantageously enhance the magnetic field at the coil to both increase the sensitivity of the proximity sensor and to allow the field to be better guided and directed in the desired direction for the field.
As to Claims 28, 29, 30, 31,
Teppan in view of Heemstra does not disclose the primary coil is positioned in a tubular housing on a front side of the tubular housing, the primary coil, the at least one compensation coil and the separately controllable current source are arranged in a rectangular or cylindrical housing, the housing is made of at least one of plastic or metal, the primary coil, the at least one compensation coil and the separately controllable current source are arranged in a housing in the shape of a circular cylinder.
Gong discloses the primary coil is positioned in a tubular housing on a front side of the tubular housing (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0019]), the primary coil, the at least one compensation coil and the separately current source are arranged in a rectangular or cylindrical housing (Paragraph [0019], [0020], [0022],[0028] / note that the coils are separately excited and thus must have their own separate current sources), the housing is made of at least one of plastic or metal (Paragraph [0020]), the primary coil, the at least one compensation coil and the separately controllable current source are arranged in a housing in the shape of a circular cylinder (Paragraphs [0019],[0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Teppan in view of Heemstra to include the primary coil is positioned in a tubular housing on a front side of the tubular housing, the primary coil, the at least one compensation coil and the separately controllable current source are arranged in a rectangular or cylindrical housing, the housing is made of at least one of plastic or metal, the primary coil, the at least one compensation coil and the separately controllable current source are arranged in a housing in the shape of a circular cylinder given the above disclosure and teaching of Gong in order to advantageously protect the coil and entirety of the sensing device from the external environment so as to prevent the sensor from becoming damaged, while using a material that advantageously will not negatively interfere with the magnetic fields being generated and detected by the sensing device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0252899 A1 to Looser which explains that typically, a controllable current or voltage source is realized by an amplifier in paragraph [0107].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights